Australia can have no impact on global climate even if it cuts all carbon dioxide production and we return to living in caves. Yet after promising no carbon dioxide tax, the Australian government is now pushing BOTH a carbon dioxide tax AND carbon dioxide 'trading' scheme.

Australians care about honesty and about their security and our natural environment. Our inherent care for the environment has been tapped and then hijacked to wrap revenue raising in unfounded climate alarm dressed as an environmental issue.

Understanding the environmental, economic and social damage of unfounded climate alarm enables us to return our care to addressing real environmental and humanitarian challenges and to protecting our security, our future.

Throughout this web site, red text represents the money trail. Use it to discover who's eyeing your money.

Freedom of choice of work depends on mobility from personal and public transport. We are not forced to work near home. We are free to choose another employer. We don't have to eat the local farmer's produce, we can get food from farmers in Asia, Europe, America, Africa, … We don't have to attend the local school, we can travel to our choice. … We cherish freedom of choice.

Nature combines carbon with oxygen to produce energy. Humans harvest that and today in almost every aspect of our lives we depend intimately on Nature's fuels containing carbon. They are high in energy density making them highly productive. They generate 90% of Australia's electricity making our life freer, easier, safer, cleaner, longer, more productive and wealthier.

Coal containing carbon was produced during far lusher times on Earth. Thanks to far higher atmospheric CO2 levels, massive forests grew and removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When burned, that natural carbon is released to enrich the atmosphere.

With improved combustion technology and increased efficiency, real pollutants such as particulates and toxic gases are minor and reducing even further. Combustion also produces non-polluting life-giving water vapour and CO2.

If humanity had not replaced wood and whale oil for heating and lighting, what would now be the state of Earth's forests and whales?

The benefits are proven. Using fuels containing carbon has released billions of humans from poverty and control by others. We need to extend those benefits to the 1.5 billion people currently lacking electricity. That is a moral issue.

'Putting a price on carbon dioxide' though makes electricity, transport and manufacturing much more expensive and imports relatively cheaper.

The government says its target for 2020 is a 5% reduction of carbon dioxide production below 2000 levels. Its gaffe-prone Chief Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery renowned for his many startling self-contradictions and serial failed forecasts though let the cat out of the bag. In Ipswich on Thursday, April 7th, 2011 he admitted that with economic growth, quote, "that's a very ambitious" 26%. That's slicing more than one quarter of our primary energy.

Soaring cost-of-living pressures

A picture saves a thousand words.

Times are changing even without taxing or rationing carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide taxes and 'trading' schemes will:
- Savagely increase the cost of living because energy is vital in every aspect of our lives - transport, lighting, heating, air-conditioning, entertainment, industry, information, …
- Reduce Australian jobs as overseas production using untaxed energy will be comparatively cheaper;
- Fatten profits of major global banks 'trading' carbon dioxide permits;
- Demand subsidies and payments to vested interests lining up to siphon taxpayers;
- Give government control over energy and over other industries and markets;
- Raise electricity bills and fuel bills;
- Add massive bureaucracy to control energy, carbon dioxide measurements, and redistribution of income to affected industries and citizens. Every citizen will be hurt;
- Redistribute income to support poor nations reducing their responsibility and burdening Australian taxpayers;
- Be rife with abuse as vested interests line up for subsidies, offsets and compensation;
- Damage the environment in four ways:

1. Taxing carbon dioxide is the perfect revenue base for irresponsible and greedy government

Politicians know that energy is economically inelastic because it is essential and has no competitors. Apart from nuclear and hydro power nothing comes close to the low cost of coal-fired electricity. Our civilization depends on fuels producing carbon dioxide. They're essential to our way of life and health.

European experience shows that regardless of the price, as energy prices rise consumers do not reduce its use (inelastic). This is true for both electricity and petrol, commodities severely hit by a carbon dioxide tax. People are forced to pay more. They simply redirect income from other expenditures. Unemployment rises, wealth decreases and choices reduce.

This is the perfect tax base for a government intending to control the economy. It's a tax on the essential of modern life, energy. It's a tax on Nature because carbon is in every cell of every living organism.

Under the European 'trading' scheme, energy usage has increased. The net result is higher cost of living, reduced disposable income and lower standards of living. All for no benefit to climate or the environment.

Norway has imposed a carbon dioxide tax since the early 1990s yet carbon dioxide production has increased 15%.

At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in carbon dioxide production yet hurt jobs and cost-of-living - for no effect on climate because carbon dioxide is a consequence of, not a cause of, temperature.

Due to the artificial 'assets' (credits) created by 'trading' schemes, it is difficult to remove the schemes once in place.

2. Exporting jobs for no environmental benefit

As Australia raises energy prices, jobs go to countries with cheaper energy. The government says it will compensate export industries. Export coal is Australia's number one export income earner. Australians will be taxed to subsidise Australian exports. In effect, Australians will pay to make use of high quality, clean Australian coal more expensive in Australian power stations yet keep Chinese generator costs low.

3. Creating perverse rewards for uneconomic behaviour

Warburton describes the working of a carbon dioxide 'trading' scheme, quote: "Governments place a cap on an emitter's level of emissions. As an alternative to reducing emissions to the capped limit, the emitter can buy credits from other emitters who have reduced emissions below their cap, or from developers of emission-reducing projects, typically in poorer countries. In the latter case, credits are awarded only if a certifier hypothesises before an emissions-reducing activity is undertaken, that it would not occur unless the credits were awarded: the creditable activity must be uneconomic without the credits. It is perverse to create a reward for otherwise uneconomic activities. Certification involves making a prediction, and is inherently subjective and impossible to audit effectively … an audit …may be years later."

Warburton: "The US Government Accounting Office reported on the UN's Clean Development Mechanism: 'Some offset credits were awarded for projects that would have occurred even in the absence of the CDM, despite a rigorous screening process. Such projects do not represent net emission reductions and can compromise the integrity of programs … that allow the use of CDM credits for compliance'"www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/4/the-intelligent-voter-s-guide-to-global-warming-part-ii

Insanity.

What happens to small business caught in a double vice?

While the government made lavish promises of compensation to families, individuals and large companies, what will happen to small business?

The Prime Minister announced that to deter consumption of fuels containing carbon (90% of electricity generation) any carbon dioxide tax would need to cause pain.

Higher energy costs will raise small business' costs. Higher taxes and higher prices will mean customers will have less disposable income. Small business revenue will fall. Taking a hit on both costs and revenue is like being trapped in a tightening vice.

4. Understanding how 'capping and trading' operates and why it fails

Warburton: "Christopher Booker has pointed out that 50% of all 'certified emission reduction credits' were being bought from China, the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, which has been building an average two coal-fired power stations a week." Apparently China generated those credits from its massive 'uneconomic' hydroelectric projects. Yet hydropower is the cheapest form of power. How were these credits certified? Could it be because Maurice Strong, the UN founder and manipulator of unfounded global warming is now living in China? He reportedly fled there pursued by American legal authorities after a history of questionable financial dealings.

Warburton: "The Asian Development Bank in 2006 estimated China would obtain an annual income of up to $USD2.25 billion from selling credits." Aussies will pay for that.

Similarly, Russia is earning huge amounts of cash for shutting down old, inefficient factories that were already slated for closure. Europeans are reportedly paying this cash to the Russians.

Warburton says: "As an alternative to reducing its emissions, the emitter is allowed to purchase carbon offsets arising from a certified project in a developing country. It will do this if the offsets are cheaper, which is often the case. In this way emitters in rich countries do not have to change their ways. Nor, because of the hazards of certification, can there be any confidence about a meaningful reduction of emissions in the poor country." The UN, major banks and government each get a cut - paid for by customers and taxpayers.

Warburton, quoting the US General Accounting Office: "Overall, the cumulative effect … on emissions is uncertain because of a lack of baseline emissions data."

Warburton: "A common criticism is that an ETS (carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme) has the perverse effect of rewarding the biggest emitters."

Insanity.

5. 'Trading' schemes increase uncertainty in business and in making decisions

Major international bank, Goldman Sachs owns 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) formed to promote carbon dioxide 'trading'. The CCX's fifth largest shareholder is a company founded, part-owned and chaired by Al Gore. Al Gore pays carbon credits to himself via the company he co-founded and chairs and of which he remains largest shareholder.

IIf it gets up, this scheme could push Al Gore to become the world's first carbon billionaire.

8. Subsidies pandering to vested interests paid ultimately by the taxpayer in taxes or reduced benefits.

As soon as the government broke its pre-election promise by announcing it wants to tax carbon dioxide, various interests lined up at the trough to steal 'compensation' or minimise costs. These include industries producing fuels containing carbon. The government's previous attempt to 'trade' carbon dioxide saw a frenzy of claims and government promises to pay.

9. Government subsidies and regulations give it control of the energy market and other industries and markets using energy

Government meddling muddles the market and creates inefficiencies ultimately paid by the customer or taxpayer.

10. Australian electricity prices and fuel prices will rise even more dramatically

Australian electricity prices are already rising dramatically and affecting families severely. Why? Because government legislation dictates that power generators must use high cost, unreliable so-called 'renewable' energy. Customers pay for those business ventures to receive subsidies dictated by government regulation.

Already, European nations and American states that led the push to force people to use renewables have withdrawn subsidies. Why? Because they can no longer afford the subsidies.

Holland is the home of windmills and was celebrated for its recent wind farms. As wind farms fail to deliver cheap, reliable electricity Holland is turning to German coal-fired electricity and Scandinavian hydro-electricity. Germany is now increasing coal fired generation.

What will happen to electricity prices when Australian subsidies are removed? Who will pay us for government 'renewable energy' follies paid to self-serving interests? Taxpayers. A magnified burden and enormous waste. All for no impact on climate.

The government admits that revenue from carbon dioxide taxing and 'trading' will be paid into UN funds to redistribute wealth overseas - largely as a way for the UN to buy support from undeveloped nations that will suffer from higher energy prices.

What is the extent of commitments Greg Combet made on Australia's behalf by signing the UN FCCC's Cancun agreement in December 2010? Why are we told so little about the contents?
(UN FCCC is yet another UN bureaucracy. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

12. Taxing rain

Even Al Gore admits water vapour is 95% of the supposed 'greenhouse effect'. Yet water vapour varies enormously from almost zero to as high as 5% of the atmosphere.

To pass parliament the GST was tightly constrained. Yet the carbon dioxide tax is deliberately open-ended so it can be revised upward. Despite being justified by corruption and driven by lies and falsities it has undergone no scrutiny.

Des Moore's messages

Truth is that Garnaut is partisan [Greg Sheridan in The Australian, 16th June 2011]"Ross Garnaut has the policy paradigm, and a lot else, completely wrong on the Gillard government's proposed carbon tax."

Five environmental tragedies and destruction from pushing a price on carbon dioxide

The greatest human environmental impact is the sheer number of humans on Earth. Each has to be fed, clothed, housed, transported, educated, … Each needs many services including sewage and waste disposal.

This proven sequence has lifted far more humans out of poverty and misery than any other action in human history. Combined with human creativity and initiative, fuels with high energy density have revolutionised our world and dramatically lowered birth rates, the single greatest human impact on the natural environment.

Poor people are too worried about scrounging their next meal to care about the environment. Worldwide and throughout history, as annual income rises above approximately $7,000-$8,000 per person, people have the wealth to care for the environment.

As income and leisure increases people have the wealth and desire to enjoy and thus protect the environment. Wealth and knowledge from honest science enables protecting the environment.

The greatest threats to the environment are poverty and ignorance. Raising energy prices and corrupting science entrenches both ignorance and poverty.

History shows human population itself is not a threat to the environment because each mouth to be fed is accompanied by a brain and imagination. Creativity needs freedom and wealth though to flourish and provide solutions.

2. When funds are diverted onto chasing Nature's trace gas essential to life on Earth, funds are diverted away from scientific research aimed at reducing real pollution

Major Australian universities have formed 'Climate' institutes to tap the flood of global warming taxpayer funding. This promotes the falsity that humans caused global warming.

Despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent on researching global warming none of these academics institutes has any real-world evidence that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.

While some western nations chase a natural trace gas, real environmental issues are ignored or swept aside. eg, pollution of air, water, land; management of urban waste; pressure of urbanisation on animal and plant habitat.

3. Exploiting ecosystems through carbon dioxide 'trading' schemes is the single greatest threat to the global environment

Canadian environmentalist and author, Lawrence Solomon says, quote: "But Kyoto (carbon dioxide trading) is not an insurance policy. Just the opposite, it is the single greatest threat today to the global environment, because it makes carbon into currency. Carbon is the element upon which all living things are built. With carbon a kind of currency - which is what all carbon dioxide taxes and carbon 'trading' and similar schemes do - all ecosystems suddenly have a commercial value that makes them subject to manipulation for gain."

Already there have reportedly been billions of dollars of corruption on 'trading' Nature's trace gas whose production is difficult to measure and easy to misrepresent. That corruption has occurred on local, national and international levels. The poor in Africa have paid dearly - financially and through destruction of their livelihoods and their natural environment.

Warburton: "In December 2009 Europol, the Europeans' criminal intelligence agency, warned ETS (carbon dioxide emissions 'trading' scheme) fraud had resulted in about 5 billion Euro in lost revenues and as much as 90 per cent of the entire market volume on emissions exchanges was caused by fraudulent activity. In late April 2010 there were 25 arrests in Britain and Germany for ETS fraud, involving more than 100 suspects employed at banks and energy traders. A Europol official, Rafael Rondelez, has described the ETS as an 'incredibly lucrative target for criminals. This is because carbon (dioxide) credit is an intangible good … With this, it's just the click of a mouse'."www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/4/the-intelligent-voter-s-guide-to-global-warming-part-ii

Warburton: "Enron and Lehman Brothers were vociferous advocates of carbon (dioxide) pricing. An ETS adds volatility to the financial system."

4. Governments driven by electoral focus groups instead of science are the greatest wasters of resources and destroyers of the environment. Exhibit A: Biofuels

Biofuels were promoted to address global warming. They threaten the human and natural environments. Yet, environmental destruction has been aided by government subsidies ignorantly attempting to buy the green vote.

Biofuels have been pushed by various interests and cause enormous environmental destruction. The waste is multiplied as, reportedly, NSW ALP government subsidies drove clearing of Indonesian rainforests for biofuel plantations while federal ALP payments compensated Indonesians.

Or was that vice-versa? What does it matter, they both look green … as they plunder taxpayers to buy green votes and along the way destroy the environment.

Production of biofuels is promoted as a way of reducing dependence on fuels containing carbon, yet overall it creates at least the same levels of carbon dioxide and uses enormous quantities of precious water. In the ignorance and confusion around harmless and essential carbon dioxide and the use of policy based on pseudo-science, such stupidity is rife - and costly.

5. Wind 'farms' are a threat to natural and human environments

Science is now discussing the danger of wind farms to both the human and natural environments and their danger to the economy.

Spain has already shown wind farms are driving investment out of Spain and raising unemployment. This applies similarly to other Europeans nations and American states including California.

When science and reason are squashed for political agenda and the desire to appear 'green', the result is waste and environmental destruction.

Hypocrisy on carbon dioxide x10

Implementing a carbon dioxide tax or carbon dioxide 'trading' scheme (ETS) is based on claims that human production of carbon dioxide is warming the planet catastrophically. That claim has been repeatedly proven false and contradicts science.

The government pushes a carbon dioxide tax AND emissions 'trading' scheme. This site's Section 2 on The Science & Futility showed that to justify its claims it uses fraudulent UN IPCC reports misrepresenting climate and science. It says carbon dioxide is carbon pollution - a complete falsity.

1. The federal government's and prime minister's own backflips aided by the opposition's backflips and fear of the media

Ripe for an election issue, global warming was fabricated into what Kevin Rudd infamously labelled "the greatest moral challenge of our time"

Once strapped to the global warming rocket they fabricated, Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard together rode the "the greatest moral challenge of our time" into office as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

As a member of the inner cabinet, Julia Gillard oversaw all decisions of the Rudd-Gillard government. She was involved in the massive waste of the Building the Education Revolution, the pink batts campaign and other Rudd-Gillard legacies of waste and mismanagement. She oversaw the first Rudd-Gillard carbon dioxide 'trading' scheme, the CPRS.

When polls soured she abandoned ship and advised Kevin Rudd to dump pushing a price on carbon dioxide. She and Treasurer Wayne Swan advised that Kevin Rudd abandon the Rudd-Gillard CPRS. In the battering Kevin Rudd absorbed for taking Julia Gillard's advice she took the leadership, publicly stating that the Rudd(-Gillard) government had lost its way.

After becoming prime minister and immediately prior to the latest federal election she promised clearly she would not introduce a carbon dioxide tax. Yet immediately after the election when forming a coalition with the Greens, she committed to introducing BOTH a carbon dioxide tax AND a carbon dioxide 'trading' scheme.

'Fighting global warming' is encouraged as a moral issue. The corruption of science and economics it has indeed become a moral issue.

The opposition leader, Tony Abbott has made many public twists and turns on global warming. Despite being the Coalition's 'hard-man' at times he seems to be running scared of some within his own party and especially scared of the media's irresponsible ignorance in blindly promoting unfounded global warming.

Although his policy is far superior to that of Malcolm Turnbull and the government, it endorses misrepresentation of science. Although it will do far less damage and provide some genuine environmental benefits it reinforces the lie of global warming supposedly caused by human carbon dioxide.

That even a supposedly 'strong' politician lacks confidence in his own ability to communicate the truth undermines people's confidence in all federal parties and politicians. It raises concerns about the ignorance, herd mentality and perceived power of the media and the politicisation of science.

2. The government promotes burning Aussie coal in export markets while demanding taxing Aussies for burning the same coal in Australia

The government encourages exports of clean Australian coal to be burned in overseas power stations. Yet when the same coal is burned in Australian power stations it's labelled 'pollution' falsely justifying an opportunity to raise taxes.

The government's own budget depends on taxing mining profits at a higher rate. That is made possible by increased exports of Australian coal.

The government proudly boasts of fast-tracking a $7 billion dollar export coal project in Queensland.

The government promises no coal mining job losses yet says it wants to cut consumption of coal in Australia. The government's contradictions are many and frequent. They're impossible to keep.

3. Queensland's ALP government justifies selling its rail network as the means to pay for infrastructure to ensure 50% increase in coal exports.

In September 2010, the Queensland state ALP Treasurer, Andrew Fraser proudly forecast 50% increases in coal exports from his state. As justification for selling Queensland Rail, he cited the need to attract capital investment to expand the rail network.

Coal mining royalties are a major revenue source for state governments. That's one of many reasons why they promote coal exports.

The government promises to change behaviour by inflicting pain through 'pricing carbon dioxide' yet promises to compensate the poor and middle class.

The government promises to compensate exporters - coal mining is Australia's number one export income earner - and key companies such as power generators, aluminium smelters …

The government admits taxing and regulating will dramatically increase the cost of bureaucracy to control carbon dioxide and redistribute wealth.

The government promises to pay carbon dioxide taxation revenue into a UN fund for wealth redistribution to developing nations. Is this a form of tithing Aussie income to wasteful UN bureaucrats with their history of lacking accountability?

The government is promising enormous payments and commitments without affecting the middle-class and poor.

This is an impossible mess of conflicting promises. It is not possible to keep them all. They will be broken. People will pay, as usual, for politicians' weakness and dishonesty.

Yet while reducing CO2 production, they will have no impact on world temperature or climate. They cannot even affect atmospheric CO2 levels controlled by Nature.

All for no possible impact on climate. All damage and no gain. All pain and drain.

What a mess and risk just to save face on Kevin Rudd's dramatic 2007 campaign promises spreading UN IPCC misrepresentations and fraud.

As Prime Minister Julia Gillard said herself, carbon dioxide taxes and carbon dioxide 'trading' schemes are designed to cause pain to reduce consumption of fuels producing carbon dioxide. Taxes and 'trading' schemes will each produce devastating, life changing economic and social implications across Australia.

The government does not promise to cap its price of carbon dioxide. It's open-ended. As it lowers the carbon dioxide cap, revenue increases and the public pay more for energy.

5. The government promises compensation under its temporary carbon dioxide tax yet will switch the tax to a 'trading' scheme. What then?

What will happen to the compensation when the government switches to a carbon dioxide 'trading' scheme in 2015? What will happen under the open-ended 'cap and trade' rationing scheme when it continually lowers the cap to raise the carbon dioxide price?

6. The sea level rise you have when you don't have sea level rises

During the 2007 election campaign Kevin Rudd warned of dire threats from rising sea levels that he forecast from human production of CO2. That unfounded falsity seemed forgotten three years later when he and his wife purchased a beachside home on Queensland's Sunshine Coast.

Similarly, in 2007 when the current minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, bought a Newcastle beachside family home to live outside his electorate.

In 2010 Al Gore purchased his new California beachside mansion. That's in addition to his three existing mansions and extravagant production of carbon dioxide from use of private jets and his exorbitant electricity habit. That's in addition to his apartment at Fisherman's Wharf waterfront in San Francisco harbour.

Australia's most prominent academic alarmist and one of Australia's most prolific misrepresenters of climate and of science is Tim Flannery. Despite making numerous unfounded and unscientific warnings of imminent doom, he lives on the tidal Hawkesbury waterfront near Sydney.

While these prominent people earn a living and/or status from misrepresenting climate, the Secombes are a retired motor mechanic and clerk living in their modest home on the Australian coast. According to the reliable national newspaper 'The Weekend Australian', Saturday, March 24th 2012 their local council tried to forcibly evict them from their retirement home.

Following requests for fairness and accuracy from citizens threatened by Moreton Bay Regional Council's unscientific and unfounded arbitrary dictates, Queensland government Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning The Hon Jeff Seeney made an order on 28th November 2014 that council is to base planning decisions on actual data (not unfounded predictions).

7. Al Gore's alarming falsities and contradictions exposed

In 2007 the British High Court ruled that 77 pages of corrective guidance be sent to all British schools screening Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The reason? The High Court ruled that the movie is not scientific, it's political. It ruled the movie contains at least nine major contradictions of science.

When media reports and government publications discuss carbon dioxide, they often show photographs of particulates barely visible from chimneys or show water vapour billowing from cooling towers. Yet carbon dioxide is colourless - invisible.

Close to elections, the NSW ALP government broadcast advertisements depicting carbon 'pollution' as black balloons rising from the floor. Yet carbon dioxide is heavier than air and colourless. Despite this it's depicted as evil black. Propaganda.

In just two weeks Aussie families will be slugged with a carbon tax to pay for a 'green Utopia'.

But where is this money really going? And are our carbon tax bureaucrats practising what they preach?

We did a little digging and discovered what many long suspected. While Aussie families are struggling, bureaucrats are living the high life and travelling to exotic destinations at our expense.

Documents released to the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance under Freedom of Information laws revealed that bureaucrats in the Department of Climate Change flew 6,528,616km last financial year, costing us a staggering $3,274,286.40!

And while these very people are lecturing us to act like we're back in the dark ages the carbon emissions of these flights equal over 1000 tonnes!

The hypocrisy is staggering – it's one rule for them, and another rule for us. No wonder they are happy to slug airlines with the carbon tax – they don't have to pay the bill!

So where were they flying to?

None other than the holiday resorts of Cancun, Vanuatu, Miami, Fiji, The Maldives, Grenada, Barcelona... Must be tough having to travel to places like the Caribbean and South Pacific all the time!

The actions of Department staff make one thing clear: the carbon tax isn't about the environment, it's about squeezing taxpayers for their own benefit.

And of course, it's only the best in luxury travel for our bureaucrats – no expense is spared! Many of these flights cost the taxpayers up to ten times what an online economy class ticket would cost.

A round trip from Sydney to Bali cost for one person $15,311!!!!! I had a look on Jetstar just now, and you could get economy flight for under $700! Then there's the flight to Seaul ($15,688.57), Thailand ($13,093.74pp for two people), Chile ($12,805.46)…

And this doesn't even include accommodation: From $21,115.69 for a 5 star hotel in Thailand to the whopping $265,000 for the delegation in Durban.

We asked who took these flights, but they refused to answer. It is no wonder that the Department of Climate Change refused to reveal who took these flights – I'd be ashamed too if this was found out. We shall be appealing this decision, because the Australian public has a right to know whose holidays they are paying for!

This is just the first tranche of a series of documents we received under Freedom of Information laws, and thank you to everyone whose donation made this possible (we were charged over $750!) We shall be releasing further data discovered about waste and misuse of taxpayer funds soon.

Australians must known about these scams! Please tell your friends about this, share it on Facebook and on Twitter and make sure everyone knows the truth so we can AXE THIS TAX!

Challenge to a debate

The eight Australian academics prominent in promoting human causation of warming are challenged to debate publicly at a mutually acceptable venue with a mutually acceptable chairperson. The debate will include:
- The UN IPCC - the basis of the government climate policy
- Real-world science - the only sound basis of climate policy
- The economics - the impacts of climate policy

Forgiveness

Please protect Australia's economy and future

Please help us access mainstream media to inform the public of the threat to their economy so they can take steps to protect Australia's economy. You can make a donation here.

Please ask your members of federal parliament to take action to end the corruption by demanding a royal commission or independent judicial investigation requiring evidence under oath to investigate the corruption of science. Offer them your vote and support if they vote against any carbon dioxide tax or 'trading scheme'.